Connect with us

Editorials

The Ectoplasmic Residue of Slimer and the Library Ghost in ‘Ghostbusters’ [It Came From the 80s]

Published

on

scariest Ghostbusters

It Came From the ‘80s is a monthly series that pays homage to the monstrous, deadly, and often slimy creatures that made the ‘80s such a fantastic decade in horror.

Where there are Ghostbusters, there is Slimer. The gluttonous ghost didn’t even have a name in his first appearance, nor were the minds behind Ghostbusters II even sure they’d bring him into the mix. Yet Slimer’s presence in both Ghostbusters and The Real Ghostbusters cartoon made him supremely popular with kids, which tipped the indecisive scales on the sequel. In turn, it solidified the Class 5 full-roaming vapor as a mainstay fixture in the franchise.

In the script for Ghostbusters, Slimer had no name. He was referred to as the Onionhead Ghost, described as a foul-smelling thing with an affinity for slime. Director/Producer Ivan Reitman likened the specter to Bluto from Animal House, and he was considered to be the ghost of John Belushi. Designing the Onionhead Ghost of John Belushi proved not as easy as it might sound. Executives and writers had lots of specific ideas, making the lengthy design process for this particular ghost extra tough for Boss Films Studio visual effects team, and effects artist and sculptor Steve Johnson in particular.

According to Johnson, impending deadlines put the pressure on to sculpt the final design, and an assist from cocaine helped him nail it.

As for implementing the lovable ghost on screen, Johnson’s design and sculpt was transformed into a foam latex puppet. Puppeteer Mark Wilson got into the puppet to operate Slimer’s body and arm movement, his legs dressed in pitch black to hide them. Off-camera puppeteers controlled Slimer’s facial expressions. Slimer’s parts were shot against a black screen, and the footage was later overlaid with the rest of the film, giving it that translucent effect. Essentially, a lot of puppeteering and clever camera tricks. Oh and Reitman voiced Slimer.

The same method was used in the creation of the film’s first introduction to the world of supernatural, the somewhat terrifying Library Ghost. Ruth Oliver played the quiet, subdued version of the specter roaming the shelves of the library. When Venkman (Bill Murray), Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Spengler (Harold Ramis) antagonize her with enough noise, her human façade gives way to a much more ghoulish appearance. Like Slimer, Johnson is the one behind her design, too.

The team lifecast Oliver to use as a basis for building a ghastly animatronic version of the character. The human features were elongated and distorted to creepy proportions, and the costume was rigged to tear-away and expose the ghoulish body underneath.

Boss Films and Johnson delivered two memorable ghosts at opposite ends of the scare spectrum, among a sea of remarkable creature designs for one of the ‘80s best supernatural comedies: the lovable mascot of the franchise, and the menacing librarian that offered an initial thrilling introduction to the Ghostbusters. The latter of which served as my own personal gateway into horror.

It’s Slimer, though, that has proven to be one of the most enduring creatures of the ’80s. 

Horror journalist, RT Top Critic, and Critics Choice Association member. Co-Host of the Bloody Disgusting Podcast. Has appeared on PBS series' Monstrum, served on the SXSW Midnighter shorts jury, and moderated horror panels for WonderCon and SeriesFest.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading